Liberia Supreme Court: Wilmot Smith Ecobank Reversal of Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court of Liberia reversed its own final judgment in the Wilmot Smith v. Ecobank Liberia Ltd. defamation case just one day after its initial issuance.
• Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay cited an "inadvertent error," claiming activists Martin K.N. Kollie and Alex Williams were not properly parties to the lower court case.
• However, certified lower court records show Martin K.N. Kollie was duly served by publication on multiple occasions in 2025, in accordance with Liberian Civil Procedure Law Chapter 3.
• The original Supreme Court judgment had found Ecobank negligent and both Kollie and Williams to have acted with malice in republishing leaked bank statements.
• The reversal raises questions about the finality of appellate decisions and the Supreme Court's role in fact-finding, particularly regarding service of process.

This unprecedented move, occurring on Friday, August 28, saw the nation's highest court reverse a unanimous opinion it had delivered on Thursday, August 27, concerning a US$350,000 defamation award.

The Supreme Court of Liberia recently took the extraordinary step of recalling its own final judgment in a high-profile defamation case, Wilmot Smith v. Ecobank Liberia Ltd., just one day after its initial issuance. This unprecedented move, occurring on Friday, August 28, saw the nation's highest court reverse a unanimous opinion it had delivered on Thursday, August 27, concerning a US$350,000 defamation award. The decision has drawn significant scrutiny, particularly as it pertains to the court's stated reasons for the reversal.

Chief Justice Yamie Quiqui Gbeisay, speaking from the bench, characterized the US$50,000 damages awarded against activists Martin K.N. Kollie and Alex Williams as an "inadvertent error." The Chief Justice asserted that these individuals "were not parties to the case before the lower court, in the manner contemplated," thereby suggesting a procedural misstep in their inclusion. However, this claim directly conflicts with the certified judicial record from the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Law Court, Montserrado County, which provides a detailed account of the proceedings against Kollie.

The certified records from the Civil Law Court paint a different picture regarding Martin K.N. Kollie's involvement in the Wilmot Smith v. Ecobank Liberia Ltd. judgment. Far from being inadvertently included, the court's documentation indicates a deliberate and legally compliant process to ensure his participation. On three separate occasions—October 16, October 23, and November 5, 2025—the Sheriff of Court filed "non est inventus" returns, signifying that personal service could not be effected on Kollie, who resides in the United Kingdom and maintains a daily Facebook Live broadcast platform.

Following these unsuccessful attempts, the presiding Judge Scheaplor R. Dunbar granted the plaintiff's request for resummon by publication. These orders mandated publication in a widely circulated Liberian daily, the News Newspaper, and posting on the Court's bulletin, in strict accordance with Chapter 3 of the Liberian Civil Procedure Law governing substituted service. Based on these three publications, plaintiff Wilmot Smith successfully moved for Co-defendant Martin K.N. Kollie to be placed on Bare Denial, a procedural consequence for a duly served defendant who fails to appear. Consequently, Kollie was formally joined with Co-defendants Ecobank Liberia Limited and its Reconciliation Officer Yussif Kromah for trial, with only Alex Williams being granted a separate trial request. This procedural history directly challenges the Supreme Court's assertion that Kollie was not a party.

Prior to its swift reversal, the Supreme Court's initial judgment in Wilmot Smith v. Ecobank Liberia Ltd. had established several key factual and legal findings. The original opinion correctly applied principles of vicarious liability and respondeat superior, affirming that an employer can be held accountable for an employee's actions, even if unauthorized. Specifically, the Court found Ecobank to be grossly negligent in its data governance practices, which allowed its officer, Yussif Kromah, to leak confidential LISGIS bank statements.

These leaked statements were subsequently received by Alex Williams and transmitted to Martin K.N. Kollie, who then broadcasted them on Spoon TV, alleging a US$1.2 million (later inflated to US$1.7 million) theft. Crucially, the initial Supreme Court opinion also included a factual finding of malice, concluding that Kollie and Williams "republished the leaked statement with malice, transforming a legitimate public-interest question into a libelous campaign." This finding of malicious intent against both individuals further underscores the perceived inconsistency of the subsequent reversal, particularly given the Chief Justice's claim that they were not properly parties to the case.

The Supreme Court's decision to recall its judgment has raised significant legal questions, particularly concerning the finality of appellate decisions and the division of labor between trial and appellate courts. Legal observers note that, as a matter of both logic and law, it is contradictory to find malice against an individual and then, within 24 hours, declare that same individual was never properly before the court. The source highlights a primary concern regarding the usurpation of fact-finding authority and a potential violation of the principle of *functus officio* for an appellate court.

In common law jurisdictions, appellate jurisdiction is not inquisitorial; the trial court serves as the sole trier of fact, especially concerning procedural matters like service of process. In this instance, the lower court meticulously reviewed the bailiff's returns, assessed due diligence, and issued multiple orders for service by publication, all in compliance with Liberian Civil Procedure Law Chapter 3, Sections 3.5-3.8. These provisions explicitly state that when personal service cannot be effected after due diligence, service by publication is a valid and complete form of service, binding the defendant to respond. The Supreme Court's original opinion acknowledged these facts, making its subsequent reversal on the grounds of improper party status a contentious point in Liberian jurisprudence.

This development signals potential instability in the finality of Supreme Court judgments in Liberia, particularly concerning procedural issues like service of process. Lawyers should meticulously document all aspects of service and be aware of the implications for challenging or relying on final appellate decisions, as this case suggests a precedent for re-evaluating lower court factual findings at the Supreme Court level.

Source: Original reporting on Liberian legal developments.